Text Size

Stardrive

Tag »

Jack Sarfatti shared a link.

Michio Kaku's new book Future of the Mind
We will be able to test whether brain presponse for example is really retro causal 
Everything nick herbert envisioned in his elemental mind book is now either done in brain labs or will be soon including uploading memories and emotions into the internet immortality wit the connect dome. Hawking is now completely paralyzed cannot use his fingers but operates computer with brain waves via something like google glass.

I do think Kaku is wrong about 11 dimensions and mind of god, however he may be right if I am wrong both pictures popper falsifiable eventually
Indeed even the 11 d geometrodynamical Kaluza Klein super string field though rocklike has a thought like super quantum bit Bohm pilot field in Hilbert space 

Kaku is mistaken about Sri CIA RV he does not know about signal nonlocality and he says the empirical results were nothing

It's time for russell Targ to challenge Kaku on that

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Deepak Chopra wrote:

This is Part 1 of a series of articles I'm writing with Menas Kafatos and Subhash Kak
I'm horrified that intelligent people buy into the naive realism of Richard Dawkins and his pseudo skeptic gang
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Hidden-Truths-Going-Beyond-Common-Sense-Reality-5283560.php 
From: Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:04 AM

Subject: Re: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc


On 3 Mar 2014, at 11:00, Deepak Chopra <nonlocal101@chopra.com> wrote:

> Some future as yet unborn could access these emails - also in mind space Where is it located ?

NSA? GCHQ? Are they, even now, figuring out how to take advantage of quantum entanglement?

Brian

PS when quite some time ago (pre-Snowden) there was news of internet problems with an underground cable I said to myself, aha! what’s really happening here is that they are breaking into that cable to plant a tap!

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: 
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

Like ·  · 

  •  

    William Kuch and Derek Cooper like this.

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1498038/posts

    Timeline of Secret Government Projects LSD, Esalen, HAARP and the Cosmic Cointelpro

    www.freerepublic.com

    note: because important web-sites are frequently "here today but gone tomorrow" the following was archived from http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/timeline.htm on November 3, 2002. This is NOT an attempt to divert readers from the aforementioned web-site.  Indeed, the reader should only read this back-u...

    6 hours ago · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti The basic germ of an explanation that I propose is rather simple:

    My idea is well described here
    http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm8.pdf...See More

    6 minutes ago · Like

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti Subject: Kaku's book & CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    From: jacksarfatti@icloud.com
    Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:37:21 -0800
    ...
    See More

     

     

    Michio Kaku on 'The Future of the Mind' | KQED

    www.kqed.org

    In his new book, 'The Future of the Mind,' theoretical physicist Michio Kaku explores how the next century of scientific innovation will expand the brain's abilities. Kaku joins us to discuss the latest in neurological research, how the brain resembles a corporation, and the fantastic inventions tha...

    5 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview

     

  •  

    Jack Sarfatti On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:04 AM, "JACK SARFATTI" <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

    A wise decision. 


    Sent from my iPhone

    On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Bernard Carr <b.j.carr@qmul.ac.uk> wrote:

    There's a lot about string theory and higher-dimensional physics in "Universe or Multiverse?" (eg. Susskind's article) and also some discussion of consciousness and mind (because of the anthropic connection). However, there's nothing explicitly about the connection between mind and higher dimensions. I felt it best not to mix these ideas in the book. Even the multiverse is a step too far for some physicists and the mind is one step further! My personal view is that these topics (multiverse, mind, higher dimensions) are all connected but the number of people interested in all three topics is probably rather small. Best wishes, Bernard. 
    ________________________________________
    From: Ruth Kastner [rekastner@hotmail.com]
    Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:50 AM
    To: Bernard Carr; Brian Josephson
    Cc: JACK SARFATTI; creon levit; nick herbert; S-P Sirag; David Kaiser; Kim Burrafato;beowulfr@interlog.com Addinall; Fred Wolf; Dean Radin; George Knapp; Russell Targ; York Dobyns; Ronald Pandolfi
    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc

    Fascinating, many thanks Bernard!
    I'm entertaining the idea that quantum objects have both mindlike and matter-like aspects, in which case we might not need a deeper theory but just the appropriate interpretation of the existing one (including relativistic qm).

    Does your edited collection Universe or Multiverse have any essays on this topic?

    Best
    Ruth

    From: b.j.carr@qmul.ac.uk
    To: rekastner@hotmail.com;bdj10@cam.ac.uk

    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:28:33 +0000

    Dear Ruth

    There are a small number of physicists (eg. Saul-Paul, Russell and maybe others on this email list) who have explored the idea that mind can be identified with a higher dimensional "reality structure", which might be viewed as an extension of general relativity. Ordinary 4-dimensional spacetime is then regarded as a slice of this higher-dimensional space. These theories are not exactly aspatiotemporal but they are a(normal)spatiotemporal. Currently there is interest in linking this idea up with M-theory (e.g. with ordinary matter being associated with the brane and mind with the bulk). I've written quite a lot about this but not in mainstream physics journals. Most string theorists of course would do more than merely roll their eyes at this suggestion! In this approach, one is not trying to deny a link between quantum theory and mind but seeking a deeper theory which underlies both.

    Best wishes, Bernard Carr
    ________________________________________
    From: Ruth Kastner [rekastner@hotmail.com]
    Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 10:02 PM
    To: Brian Josephson
    Cc: JACK SARFATTI; creon levit; nick herbert; S-P Sirag; David Kaiser; Bernard Carr; Kim Burrafato;beowulfr@interlog.com Addinall; Fred Wolf; Dean Radin; George Knapp; Russell Targ; York Dobyns; Ronald Pandolfi
    Subject: RE: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc

    Interesting. I'll think about this. BTW do you have a specific physicist in mind who is explicitly OK with the idea that real entities need not exist in spacetime? My experience has been that the minute I suggest such a thing, the eyes roll.

    Subject: Re: CTCFTLSignalsPhysRevA.89 nicks flash works w ctc
    From: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
    Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 20:53:20 +0000

    To:rekastner@hotmail.com

    On 2 Mar 2014, at 19:57, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

    those micro-physical entities are possibilities in a pre-spacetime realm, and based on that aspatiotemporal aspect, they could well be described as mental sorts of entities. It all depends on what we mean by 'physical' -- most physicists equate that to space-time objects

    Ruth,

    That all depends on what species of physicist you consult. The theoreticians are happy to consider reality beyond ordinary space-time.

    and that rules out the mental. However in my new popular book (almost finished the draft now) I explore the idea that quantum objects could be the fundamental basis for both the mental (extra-spacetime) and material (spacetime) realm. This also implies that the entire quantum realm has some degree of consciousness as well as potential materiality, which would also resolve the 'strong problem of consciousness' (Chalmers)

    I don’t think QM should be considered primary, but rather mind, which Peirce equates with ‘thirdness’, something that emerges and connect. There is a nice compilation of his quotes on this at
    http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html. Now how do things become precise and mathematical? Following Bateson in ‘mind and nature, a necessary unity’ we can argue that it is in some sense an outcome of what he calls calibration, which is connected with the ability to learn to get things right without feedback (getting them right from the start), though one might also connect this with symmetry, which is like calibrating one part of a system with another. You could argue that space-time is the outcome of subjects shaping the form of an object in order to be able to exploit its potential: imprecise mind creates precise object through technology.

    Brian

    5 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview

     

  •  

     

     

Jack Sarfatti shared a link.

For the record i consider quantum information as intrinsically mental, i.e. Stapp’s “thoughtlike”, though not “conscious” in orthodox “special” QM because of violation of the action-reaction principle in Einstein’s general sense. There must be direct back-reaction of “rocklike” (Stapp) hidden variables (Bohm) on their quantum potential pilot field Q to excite conscious qualia in the Q field (macro-quantum coherent order parameter piloting perhaps the electrons in the protein dimers in Hameroff’s model.
Michael Towler Lecture 8 describes my idea on this. My idea is consistent with David Chalmers’s disiderata and with what Brian says below.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/pilot_waves.html

On Mar 2, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

On 2 Mar 2014, at 19:57, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:

those micro-physical entities are possibilities in a pre-spacetime realm, and based on that aspatiotemporal aspect, they could well be described as mental sorts of entities. It all depends on what we mean by 'physical' -- most physicists equate that to space-time objects

Ruth,

That all depends on what species of physicist you consult. The theoreticians are happy to consider reality beyond ordinary space-time.

and that rules out the mental. However in my new popular book (almost finished the draft now) I explore the idea that quantum objects could be the fundamental basis for both the mental (extra-spacetime) and material (spacetime) realm. This also implies that the entire quantum realm has some degree of consciousness as well as potential materiality, which would also resolve the 'strong problem of consciousness' (Chalmers)

I don’t think QM should be considered primary, but rather mind, which Peirce equates with ‘thirdness’, something that emerges and connect. There is a nice compilation of his quotes on this at
http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html. Now how do things become precise and mathematical? Following Bateson in ‘mind and nature, a necessary unity’ we can argue that it is in some sense an outcome of what he calls calibration, which is connected with the ability to learn to get things right without feedback (getting them right from the start), though one might also connect this with symmetry, which is like calibrating one part of a system with another. You could argue that space-time is the outcome of subjects shaping the form of an object in order to be able to exploit its potential: imprecise mind creates precise object through technology.

Brian

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: 
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

 

 

 

On Mar 2, 2014, at 2:59 PM, JACK SARFATTI <jacksarfatti@icloud.com> wrote:

 

There are now papers coming out linking the emergence of geometrodynamics as a classical field to quantum entanglement in Hilbert space and holography all coming from Bekenstein’s horizon area ~ entropy in some way I am not yet clear on the details.

One key idea is the equivalence principle in the form of a local uniformly accelerating frame = gravity field in a frame at rest etc ties in with Rindler horizon thermodynamics and that holds locally at every local “event."

On Mar 2, 2014, at 2:48 PM, Brian Josephson wrote:


On 2 Mar 2014, at 22:02, Ruth Kastner wrote:

Interesting. I'll think about this.  BTW do you have a specific physicist in mind who is explicitly OK with the idea that real entities need not exist in spacetime? My experience has been that the minute I suggest such a thing, the eyes roll.


Can't go into any detail at this hour, but have you ever talked to a string theorist about this?  Supersymmetry which they like as it allegedly allows gravity to be quantised without divergences requires 10 or 11 dimensions.


I am very suspicious of such claims and I find extra geometrodynamic dimensions in order to avoid causality violation as a cure that is much worse than the disease. Indeed, I think nonunitary nonlinear QM signal nonlocality fits the facts of experience. Ordinary strings in 3 + 1 are OK - just my opinion.
 

And my colleague at Trinity in the field who is very well informed tells me that some people are unhappy just assuming there is such a thing as a space and want to explain how it comes about.  Here’s a possible reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Hiley#Implicate_orders.2C_pre-space_and_algebraic_structures

Here’s a quote from it, quoting very respectable people:

The notion of another order underlying space was not new. Along similar lines, both Gerard 't Hooft and John Archibald Wheeler, questioning whether space-time was the appropriate starting-point for describing physics, had called for a deeper structure as starting point. In particular, Wheeler had proposed a notion of pre-space which he called pregeometry, from which spacetime geometry should emerge as a limiting case.


Have you any comments on this, Bernard?

Brian

------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

De Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave theory and the foundations of quantum mechanics - A graduate lecture...

www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk

More Recent Activity

Jack Sarfatti

16 minutes ago via Twitter
The Real Werner Erhard http://t.co/bOBzz6yJ


The Real Werner Erhard
lnkd.in
Letter in response to George Johnson’s review of David Kaiser’s “How the Hippies Saved Physics.”
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter
Friends
4,224 Friends

Jack Sarfatti

31 minutes ago via Twitter
Dean Radin & Dick Bierman refute Nick Herbert's "Robinson conjecture"... http://t.co/CZ90YaDs


Dean Radin & Dick Bierman refute Nick Herbert's "Robinson conjecture" objection to precognition.
lnkd.in
Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter

Jack Sarfatti All the details you need are here. http://stardrive.org/stardrive/index.php/blog/dean-radin-dick-bierman-refute-nick-herbert-s-robinson-conjecture-objection-to-precognition.html

Dean Radin & Dick Bierman refute Nick Herbert's "Robinson conjecture" objection to precognition.
stardrive.org
Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
30 minutes ago · Like · Remove Preview




Jack Sarfatti

17 hours ago near Marylebone, United Kingdom
Flying back to San Francisco Sunday. Six weeks abroad.
Like ·
Derek Cooper, Steven Sequeira, Teresa Tindal and 3 others like this.

Andrea Espelien Tinordi Jack, I Bless you in the name of Jesus!!
14 hours ago · Like

Derek Cooper Epic journey.
13 hours ago · Like


Places
78 Places
See All
10 Recent Places


Jack Sarfatti was at Soho and 9 other places.
See All Stories

Jack Sarfatti

17 hours ago via Twitter
Nick Herbert objects to claims of back-from-the-future pre-sponse in the brain.
http://t.co/7OkXKtLp


Nick Herbert thinks precognition is hogwash - bad statistical method. Who is right?
lnkd.in
Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter

Gareth Lee Meredith I think what is hogwash, is to claim something without the proper investigation into the facts. The Military have for instance, spent great deals of money for instance, into training their men into ''precognitive phenomena.'' Ask, why then would something be hogwash when someone ''out there'' (the powers that be) have wasted all this tax-payers money. I know I said this before, but the work of Benjamin Libet also contributed greatly in his work concerning a retrocausal stimulus in patients skin reactions to electrical signals.
17 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Nick is saying it's possible to explain the data without back from the future effects. I don't understand Robinson's argument however. It seems like a shell game. But I have not put more than a few seconds into trying to understand it. Presumably Nick has.
14 hours ago · Like · 1

Gareth Lee Meredith I agree it is possible to explain the data without a retrocausal transaction, however, Einstein once said... as you will be well aware of Doctor... Keep science as simple as possible. I know of your investigations into backwards from future events, when taking all the evidence at hand, it is the simplest explanation.
14 hours ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith So... who is complicating things but Nick? He is right to question but without understanding all the facts, he is just a wild speculator... yet those who understand such things are single-eyed chicklets in the kingdom of the blind.
14 hours ago · Like



Likes
Recently
Likes

Physicists say there may be a way to prove that we...
io9

Brian Josephson safeguards historic contribution o...

Obama Makes Surprise Visit To Quantum-Branching Mu...
The Onion

London council set to remove ‘anti-Semitic’ mural...
Times of Israel App

Goodreads
Recently
Want to Read

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful...
by Russ Baker

Jack Sarfatti

19 hours ago via Twitter
http://t.co/JCqqkXUn


Bus Service for Qubits
jqi.umd.edu
Joint Quantum Institute - NIST/UMD
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter

Jack Sarfatti

23 hours ago via Twitter
I uploaded a @YouTube video http://t.co/TCu01XFf Maggie Jones


Maggie Jones
youtu.be
Kensington Palace area London
Like · · @JackSarfatti on Twitter

Jack Sarfatti

Yesterday near Marylebone, United Kingdom
Breaking news - scientific evidence for precognition.
4Like ·
Theodore Silva, Stein Leirvik, Bernd Prager and 11 others like this.

Jack Sarfatti This is, in my opinion, more unequivocal statistics evidence for Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality" http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049 in strong violation of orthodox quantum theory's several no-entanglement signaling theorems in living matter. This backs up CIA-SRI precognitive remote viewing reports most notably published by Russell Targ. That is, the statistical predictions of orthodox quantum theory are violated in this data in which a non-random signal is detected from a future cause. The past effect and future cause are quantum entangled in time but we do not need a classical signal key to unlock the encrypted message from the future.

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dean Radin <dradin@noetic.org>
Subject: presentiment meta-analysis published
Date: October 18, 2012 1:31:10 AM GMT+01:00
To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full

Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis

Julia Mossbridge1*, Patrizio Tressoldi2 and Jessica Utts3
1Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
2Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
3Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect. The reports we examined used one of two paradigms: (1) randomly ordered presentations of arousing vs. neutral stimuli, or (2) guessing tasks with feedback (correct vs. incorrect). Dependent variables included: electrodermal activity, heart rate, blood volume, pupil dilation, electroencephalographic activity, and blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) activity. To avoid including data hand-picked from multiple different analyses, no post hoc experiments were considered. The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size [fixed effect: overall ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.15–0.27, z = 6.9, p < 2.7 × 10−12; random effects: overall (weighted) ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.13–0.29, z = 5.3, p < 5.7 × 10−8]. Higher quality experiments produced a quantitatively larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies. The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports. We explore alternative explanations and examine the potential linkage between this unexplained anticipatory activity and other results demonstrating meaningful pre-stimulus activity preceding behaviorally relevant events. We conclude that to further examine this currently unexplained anticipatory activity, multiple replications arising from different laboratories using the same methods are necessary. The cause of this anticipatory activity, which undoubtedly lies within the realm of natural physical processes (as opposed to supernatural or paranormal ones), remains to be determined.

Wrong on last four words. The basic physics is understood.
Subquantum Information and Computation
Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).

Comments: 10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)

[quant-ph/0203049] Subquantum Information and Computation
arxiv.org
Yesterday at 9:47am · Like · 6 · Remove Preview

Steven Sequeira Dean is "The Master". And Jack you're in your own area of expertise that's entirely unparalleled.
Yesterday at 9:52am via mobile · Like

Jack Sarfatti U got that right.
Yesterday at 9:52am · Like · 2

Jack Sarfatti I will see Dean and the others Nov 1 - Nov 4 in an undisclosed location within a few hours of Washington DC after BBC films me on all this in San Francisco next week.
Yesterday at 9:53am · Like · 2

Steven Sequeira I have all of this unique research in this area. But what do I do with it? Take it to Dean, Jack?
Yesterday at 9:55am via mobile · Like

Steven Sequeira I can get three grants. No Team.
Yesterday at 9:56am via mobile · Like

Steven Sequeira All original material.
Yesterday at 9:57am via mobile · Like

Steven Sequeira Brilliant work! Thank you!
Yesterday at 9:58am via mobile · Like

Derek Cooper Interesting.
Yesterday at 11:16am · Like

Marcus T. Anthony Shared!
Yesterday at 11:54am · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith Let's not forget the evidence and work of Benjamin Libet as well 23 hours ago · Like

Joe Silva I'm not going to say, "I knew you were going to say that," because that would be predictable.
22 hours ago · Like · 1

Theodore Silva 21 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti http://stardrive.org/stardrive/index.php/blog/nick-herbert-thinks-precognition-is-hogwash-bad-statistical-method-who-is-right.html

Nick Herbert thinks precognition is hogwash - bad statistical method. Who is right?
stardrive.org
Stardrive, ISEP, Internet Science Education Project
17 hours ago · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Gareth Lee Meredith Hard to say... depends if the math is right. For those who believe and have experienced precognitive phenomena, math doesn't say... mind my  french... shit.
17 hours ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Yes, that is the point. Here science & religion overlap. Of course the Randi Forum will bend over backwards with tricky stats arguments to disprove Dean Radin's et-al's claims. But that's ok. I wonder how Dary Bem from Cornell will argue against Nick's invoking of Robinson's "hypothesis"?
17 hours ago · Like · 1

Nick Herbert Not bad statistics, Jack. You got it wrong again. But failure to examine a possible source of SYSTEMATIC ERROR first published, to my knowledge, on the JAMES RANDI site.
17 hours ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith Nick... how can you say it is ''wrong'' without studying the evidence and providing your own sufficiently?
17 hours ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith At least act like a scientist. Study the facts at hand.
17 hours ago · Like

Nick Herbert I'm not saying presentiment is wrong, Gareth, only that a plausible alternative explanation has not been given serious consideration.
16 hours ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith Well, what alternatives did you have in mind sir? There is only (up to a certain degree) how much evidence is required to believe in a theory. So again, what plausible explanation hasn't been considered seriously?
16 hours ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith For instance, what I find plausible, is Cramers Transactional Interpretation which could answer ''for a lot'' concerning how retrocausal signals can induce a persons mind to the state of seeing or knowing something before it happens... Do you sir, find that... plausible?
16 hours ago · Like

Nick Herbert What plausible explanation hasn't been seriously considered? Robin's escalating anticipation hypothesis as described on the Randi site. Have you looked at Robin's hypothesis? It's testable and does not invoke retrocognition.
16 hours ago · Like

Nick Herbert If you can think of a way to test the Cramer model, then people might take it seriously. The Robin escalating anticipation hypothesis, on the other hand, is easily testable.
16 hours ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith Cramers interpetation was tested via the Eraser Experiment... again Nick, how much evidence in hand is required?
16 hours ago · Like

Theodore Silva I am aware my experiences are useless to the scientific method but I have some questions: I've experienced precognition once – clearly so, I believe as judged by anyone who had experienced it themselves – an impressive period of a form of telepathic communication that lasted for months – with 100% accuracy. Both seemed serendipitous. I've heard the CIA trained people to remote view, is this true and how were they trained? How did their hits compare to their misses? I'm not yet convinced it can be taught.
15 hours ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith It is true, the Military in the US did in fact spend a great deal of money, training personal's to ''enhance'' if you like, the possibilities of psychics becoming useful in malicia warfare. How they where trained, I'd need to investigate again, because it has been a while since I read this report.
15 hours ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith All I can tell you, is you are not alone is precognitive phenomenon. There is real evidence, it's the proof which evades us.
15 hours ago · Like

Theodore Silva Thank you, Mr. Meredith:)
14 hours ago · Like · 1

Gareth Lee Meredith yw
14 hours ago · Like · 1

Eugenia Macer-Story Whp's the "scientist" now? Have they interviewed Oefipus Rex?
14 hours ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith who is Oefipus Rex? Rex is the latin word... I think for king... what do you mean?
14 hours ago · Like

Eugenia Macer-Story It is rather unbelievable that you would be on this list and not recofnize a reference to Oedipus Rex, a well-known character in classical Greek  literature. I suggext you consult basic references on the topic.
7 hours ago · Like · 1

Eugenia Macer-Story A famous scene in the classic Greek tragedy of Oedipus Rex is his meeting with the blind seer Tireseus who predicts he will kill his father and  marry his mother. Instead of honoring this possibility, King Oedipus roughs up the seer Tireseus and leaves the city in an attempt to avert this fate. By a series of co-incidences, however, he kills his father and marries his mother. This is an ancient theme. I was questioning "who, now" thinks this might be a new topic for verification.
7 hours ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith Greek mythology was never my strong point.
6 hours ago · Like

Marcus T. Anthony Gareth, did Libet have a belief in precognition and related concepts? I know he retained a belief in free will despite his experiments which are so  often used to refute its existence. I’ve wondered whether the neural activity which precedes decision making (according to his experiments) could be explained better if we assume time is not linear. Rupert Sheldrake believes that intention moves backwards through time (the Science Delusion). Did Libet believe something like this?
about an hour ago · Like · 1

Gareth Lee Meredith I don't know Libets full view on his interpretation, but I believe he claimed it to be evidence of a retrocausal decision making, which then begs the question whether time is linear at all. In general relativity, time isn't linear of course. In relativity, space and time compose the thing we call ''geometry''. So how can time be linear in this sense, which means we need to adopt a theory (Just like the Transactional Interpretation) - (including the idea's of Sarfatti) to explain how time is actually symmetric - offer waves and echo waves, one travelling forward in time another backwards in time. It seems like the most... simplest approach. The idea of retarded and advanced wave forms I think originally came from Maxwell in the electromagnetic theory he created. I am unaware of anyone before this first seeing systems work in this fashion. I can't comment much on ''how intention moves backwards on time'' rather I would say everything as we perceive is always stuck in the present moment. What we perceive may even be called a ''present sphere'' - the past and future are illusions to us mentally, but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that some how, everything is happening at once. I believe Fred Alan Wolf mentioned a similar idea - an idea which stemmed from the timelessness of General Relativity - this is the WDW-equation, you get that when you quantize the Einstein Field equations. Fred Wolf basically said, we are all flies stuck in amber...
55 minutes ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith So as you might guess... there are a lot of things one needs to consider when thinking about the nature of time itself. One one hand we have a  very tested theory, the transactional interpretation where ''signals'' may indeed oscillate through what we call time. On the other hand, we have General relativity which completely contradicts it with timeless solutions.
53 minutes ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith Fotini Markopoulou (A greek physicist) has done a lot of thinking on this subject. She thinks that space is not fundamental. The idea is quite good, but dates back to J. Wheeler. In Geometrogenesis, geometry did not appear in the universe until it had sufficiently cooled down, which means that neither space nor time can truly be fundamental... which might be a key to how to solve this contradiction/riddle of time itself.
40 minutes ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith If time is not fundamental, it would actually explain why General Relativity (which is a classical theory) admits timeless solutions. Perhaps time is only important when observers come into the show of things. Again, this all goes back to the Observer Effect. Inside our minds, we perceive time because of a gene regulator, there are in fact two gene regulators inside our brain which controls your short duration and long duration perceiving of time. Perhaps time, echo waves and offer waves and all these discussions leads right back to what the observer is all about, an intelligent recording device which is helping shape the universe by our observations - (Not a new idea by any means) - but is often classed as out-dated because there is of course decoherence, the idea that the human being is not a special observer, that particles themselves act as observers. I certainly don't dispute this fact (which was proven in... I think in the 1990's by Alain Aspect). I just don't think we should be too quick to throw out the importance of the human observer.
34 minutes ago · Like · 1

Marcus T. Anthony I've explored consciousness for twenty years through meditative and visionary experience (never touched a drug). For my small contribution, I can say that consciousness is not confined to the brain, space has no effect on projections from mind to mind (just as many experiments in parapsychology suggest). But there are multiple layers of both body and mind (including the brain), and they appear to cross multiple 'dimensions' (don't know what better word to use). Precognition and presentiment are genuine, and I have had many such experiences. What I have seen is that emotional attachment is key to both precognition and telepathy. Again, this is also pretty well known in parapsychology. So from a personal perspective I am very happy to see physicists like Jack and parapsychologists like Dean Radin doing this kind of work. They are definitely on the right track.
17 minutes ago · Like · 1

Gareth Lee Meredith I know many people have speculated on whether the mind is ''inside the brain'' but I often say how could it not be? Fred Hoyle once said... and  I am working from memory here so it might not be an exact quote, but he said along the lines ''Don't mind matter, but matter is the mind.''
12 minutes ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith Of course, Fred Alan Wolf makes some excellent arguments that there is in fact only one mind, and a universal consciousness and that no one can actually locate a single place where ''consciousness'' is inside the brain.
11 minutes ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith The idea there is only one consciousness was mathematically proven by Bass... I think Amit Goswami also came up with the idea independantly of the paper alongside two other physicists, unfortunately, I don't remember their names.
10 minutes ago · Like

Gareth Lee Meredith That's Ludvic Bass by the way, he was a student of Schrodinger.
8 minutes ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Nick has since softened his opinion expressed above before Dean Radin & Dick Bierman responded to him. As I am in London working on a book with  Clive Prince & Lynn Picknett and leaving soon, I do not have time to focus in on the Robinson objection. However, Dean & Dick are well aware of it and I think have given a good response to Nick. This is like the debate on Bell's theorem. Nick is doing a good job to find loop holes in the precognition interpretation of the presponse data. My money is on precognitive signal nonlocality as described for example by Russell Targ in the case of the Chinese Nuke and Ingo Swann.
6 minutes ago · Like · 1

Gareth Lee Meredith Maybe he's coming around to the idea then 3 minutes ago · Like

Jack Sarfatti Nick would like it to be true. He is just acting as a good physicist should. It's important to play Devil's Advocate - the Grand Inquistor.


On Oct 19, 2012, at 12:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:


On Oct 19, 2012, at 9:18 AM, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:



Sent from my iPhone in London, Kensington Palace Gate area

Begin forwarded message:

From: Dick Bierman <d.j.bierman@icloud.com>
Date: October 19, 2012, 4:30:34 AM GMT+01:00
To: nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com>
Cc: "SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>, Dean Radin <dradin@noetic.org>, , Richard Shoup , Exotic Physics <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>
Subject: Re: [ExoticPhysics] [Starfleet Command] Violation of orthodox quantum theory in the living brain: presentiment meta-analysis published
Reply-To: "Jack Sarfatti's Workshop in Advanced Physics" <exoticphysics@mail.softcafe.net>

Hi Nick,
Let me add to this that at the Parapsychological Association Convention in 2002 (Paris) Jan Dalkvist, Joakim Westerlund and I did already propose and discuss this theoretical alternative explanation for presentiment effects (it is mentioned in: http://archived.parapsych.org/pa_convention_2002_report.html).  I ran some simulations to explore the potential magnitude of the effect and found that for larger number of trials the effect of a 'strategy' became smaller and smaller. So, apart from the fact that the 'strategies' were not observed in the actual data as Dean Radin already mentioned the effect has also theoretical limits. Dick


On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:06 PM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:

Thanks for the clarification, Dean--

Is there a publication somewhere
where "expectation bias" is defined for this experiment
and the tests and results excluding it described?

Good question.

This would be an important publication
because as Robin illustrates
if people's emotions actually worked this way
the results could simulate presentiment without being due to precognition.

Right.


Expectation bias says that as the picture number n increases
the subject's anxiety about the next picture being disturbing naturally increases
so that when that picture actually occurs the physiological measures are unusually high.
After the stimulating picture, anxiety drops, only to slowly build up till the next stimulating picture.
The result of this kind of emotional behavior would lead to high physiological scores
on stimulating pictures without any sort of precognition.

Expectation bias predicts (for instance) not only high physiological scores on stimulating pictures N but also high scores on the neutral picture N -1 that immediately precedes the stimulating picture. I presume your tests for excluding expectation bias showed that scores on the N-1 picture were always close to chance.

Nick is on target - looking for loopholes just like in the debate over Bell's theorem.

When teaching kids at my wife's homeschool, I invented the world's simplest card game called "Pacific Octopus".
One card (usually the Ace of Spades) is designated as Pacific Octopus which is a giant, carnivorous monster whose habit is to suddenly appear in the room and devour the kid or adult that draws the one card in the deck that will summon him.

One only has to play a single game of Pacific Octopus to watch expectation bias in action. The emotion in the room slowly rises as each neutral card is pulled. Here I usually explain that there is little to worry about because there are so many cards that the odds of you being devoured are small. This statistical reassurance does little to stem the rising tide of anxiety. Finally the inevitable happens and someone is eaten by the insatiable sea creature. Then everyone relaxes and the day goes on.
For reasons of maximizing dramatic intensity, I never played Pacific Octopus a second time with the same group.
Experience with this simplest of all card games convinced me that expectation bias was a real effect--that it could simulate precognition in the presentiment experiment and that for good science to be done it is important to securely close this loophole preferably for every experimental run.

I would be interested in papers which acknowledge the possibility of this particular kind of bias and show how its absence was measured.

Nick

Nick does have the knack for making difficult ideas easy to understand for the layman. :-)


On Oct 18, 2012, at 5:00 PM, Dean Radin wrote:

It is mentioned in the article as "expectation bias," which Dick and I (and others) have looked for in the actual data. None of us have found evidence in support of that hypothetical explanation.

best wishes,
Dean


On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:34 AM, nick herbert <quanta@cruzio.com> wrote:
I've looked over this paper meta-analyzing the "presentiment experiment" and am shocked that such a careful analysis completely ignores one very plausible explanation for this seeming retrocausal effect--namely Robin's anticipatory expectation informally expressed at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=123256 but as far as I can tell never published. Radin claims to have excluded Robin's hypothesis for some of his experiments but I know of no formal replication of Radin's claim. Robin's Hypothesis is a  reasonable and entirely natural possible explanation for the presentiment effect and as such needs to be rigorously excluded before accepting presentiment as a fact.
The case for human presentiment is only as strong as the efforts made by its proponents to rigorously falsify it. The apparent failure to seriously test (or even consider--as in the MTU article)  Robin's anticipatory expectation hypothesis greatly diminishes my faith in presentiment as a real physical effect.

Nick Herbert
http://quantumtantra.blogspot.com


On Oct 18, 2012, at 1:44 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:


This is, in my opinion, more unequivocal statistics evidence for Antony Valentini's "signal nonlocality"  http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0203049 in strong violation of orthodox quantum theory's several no-entanglement signaling theorems in living matter. This backs up CIA-SRI precognitive remote viewing reports most notably published by Russell Targ. That is, the statistical predictions of orthodox quantum theory are violated in this data in which a non-random signal is detected from a future cause. The past effect and future cause are quantum entangled in time but we do not need a classical signal key to unlock the encrypted message from the future.


Begin forwarded message:

From: Dean Radin <dradin@noetic.org>
Subject: presentiment meta-analysis published
Date: October 18, 2012 1:31:10 AM GMT+01:00
To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

http://www.frontiersin.org/Perception_Science/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full

Predictive physiological anticipation preceding seemingly unpredictable stimuli: a meta-analysis

Julia Mossbridge1*, Patrizio Tressoldi2 and Jessica Utts3
1Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA
2Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy
3Department of Statistics, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
This meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010 tests an unusual hypothesis: for stimuli of two or more types that are presented in an order designed to be unpredictable and that produce different post-stimulus physiological activity, the direction of pre-stimulus physiological activity reflects the direction of post-stimulus physiological activity, resulting in an unexplained anticipatory effect. The reports we examined used one of two paradigms: (1) randomly ordered presentations of arousing vs. neutral stimuli, or (2) guessing tasks with feedback (correct vs. incorrect). Dependent variables included: electrodermal activity, heart rate, blood volume, pupil dilation, electroencephalographic activity, and blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) activity. To avoid including data hand-picked from multiple different analyses, no post hoc experiments were considered. The results reveal a significant overall effect with a small effect size [fixed effect: overall ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.15–0.27, z = 6.9, p < 2.7 × 10−12; random effects: overall (weighted) ES = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.13–0.29, z = 5.3, p < 5.7 × 10−8]. Higher quality experiments produced a quantitatively larger effect size and a greater level of significance than lower quality studies. The number of contrary unpublished reports that would be necessary to reduce the level of significance to chance (p > 0.05) was conservatively calculated to be 87 reports. We explore alternative explanations and examine the potential linkage between this unexplained anticipatory activity and other results demonstrating meaningful pre-stimulus activity preceding behaviorally relevant events. We conclude that to further examine this currently unexplained anticipatory activity, multiple replications arising from different laboratories using the same methods are necessary. The cause of this anticipatory activity, which undoubtedly lies within the realm of natural physical processes (as opposed to supernatural or paranormal ones), remains to be determined.

Wrong on last four words. The basic physics is understood.
Subquantum Information and Computation

Antony Valentini
(Submitted on 11 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 12 Apr 2002 (this version, v2))
It is argued that immense physical resources - for nonlocal communication, espionage, and exponentially-fast computation - are hidden from us by quantum noise, and that this noise is not fundamental but merely a property of an equilibrium state in which the universe happens to be at the present time. It is suggested that 'non-quantum' or nonequilibrium matter might exist today in the form of relic particles from the early universe. We describe how such matter could be detected and put to practical use. Nonequilibrium matter could be used to send instantaneous signals, to violate the uncertainty principle, to distinguish non-orthogonal quantum states without disturbing them, to eavesdrop on quantum key distribution, and to outpace quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time).

Comments:    10 pages, Latex, no figures. To appear in 'Proceedings of the Second Winter Institute on Foundations of Quantum Theory and Quantum Optics: Quantum Information Processing', ed. R. Ghosh (Indian Academy of Science, Bangalore, 2002). Second version: shortened at editor's request; extra material on outpacing quantum computation (solving NP-complete problems in polynomial time)
Subjects:




best wishes,
Dean


__._,_.___
Reply via web post                           Reply to sender     Reply to group               Start a New Topic    Messages in this topic (1)
RECENT ACTIVITY:
Visit Your Group
These are the logs of the starship NCC-1701-280Z.  Its five-year mission to seek out new minds, new quantum realms.  To boldly explore physics where no physicist  has gone before (in physical, virtual, or quantum worlds)!

Starmind(tm) -- Your daily journal to the industry's brightest stars.  You get infinite knowledge only with Starmind:

All hits.  All Physics. All the time.  And now in parallel and diverging universes.  (Thus proving they don't exist as separate entities --But have we gotten to them yet or not?)

** Patronize any Yahoo! Group Sponsor at your own risk.

- - - - - - Message From Starfleet  - - - (Read below) - - - - - - - - - - -
To change any characteristic of your online membership access, visit via web:
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Join in our ongoing discussions and theoretical science writings:
http://groups.yahoo.com/messages/SarfattiScienceSeminars

Dr. Sarfatti may be reached at his e-mail or using Internet site:
http://stardrive.org
http://www.1st-books.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To respond or comment directly to the group's archive, reply via e-mail:

SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups.com
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
.

__,_._,___

_______________________________________________
ExoticPhysics mailing list
ExoticPhysics@mail.softcafe.net
http://mail.softcafe.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/exoticphysics